Hi Dave,
> David Thomas said to Arlo:
> Is it possible that RMP's quality ideas as presented so scramble our
> understanding of experience that we're worse off, not better? Have you ever
> considered the possibility that Pirsig's take is wrong in total?
>
>
> dmb says:
> Oh, please. You're only confessing your own confusion, Dave. Have a little
> humility. It simply isn't possible to know if Pirsig is right or wrong unless
> you understand WHAT he's saying.
Dave T:
I understand that this is your longstanding theory. But if the debate over
Dynamic/Static is any indication we will all be dead before that happens.
Because I full agree that he made the dynamic/static division and correlated
it with James work. But every time I or anyone else try to explain or show
examples of why "static" is a bad characterization your response is that we
don't "understand WHAT he's saying. What you are really saying is no one
except you and the people who agree with you understands what his is saying.
But what about the Oxford metaphysician Strawson surely he has the
credentials you require below? He pretty much dismissed the work out of
hand. Have you ever ask yourself why no other internationally known
philosopher has commented? Like Rorty when I emailed him said he read ZaMM
but could recall nothing he could comment on. Why? If it's so great and
revolutionary why a Dennett or an E.O. Wilson hasn't commented? Because if
they did they would have to make politically nice and say something
insubstantial like, "interesting book."
[Ron interjects]
I'm assuming you are refering to Galen Strawson not to be confused with PF
Strawson.
Galen really isn't a hugely respected philosopher Dave, he's a book reviewer.
One of
the reasons is that he rejects moral responsibility for our actions (Marsha and
others may
agree with Galen) and another unpopular point of view is that Galen is a
physicalist.
Both of these positions conflict with Pirsigs point of view causing Galen
Strawson (not
PF Strawson) to reject Pirsigs books.
A Philosopher of the caliber of Rorty (a Pragmatist) I would imagine would have
little to
comment on regarding a philosophic novel that elevated Pragmatism in the public
life.
Those Philosophers tend to comment on things they disagree with in academic
circles.
Dave Buchanan had said to Dave T:
> Imagine a person with no background in physics saying the same thing about
> Einstein's theory. Don't you think that would be a ridiculous and absurd thing
> to say UNLESS that person knew a hell of a lot about physics and understood
> Einstein's theory? I think your comments are ridiculous and absurd in exactly
> that way. I mean, what makes you think you're qualified to make such an
> assessment? Do you have any background in philosophy at all? If so, you're
> keeping it well hidden.
>
Dave T responds:
Oh, so now one must have a PhD in philosophy to even have a chance of
understanding what RMP wrote. Guess that leaves you out. All I really should
need according to Pirsig to understand quality and reality is life and
experience. I mean even an amoeba in acid "knows" it's in a low quality
situation, right?
[Ron comments]
You are confusing the subject matter (Quality) with the metaphysic (the
explanation).
To gain a better understanding of the metaphysic, (which is what
DmB is saying) it helps to gain an understanding in the backround of
the core philosophical problems it is supposed to address.
If you do not understand the problems it is supposed to address, how can
anyone make an accurate criticism ?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
